I want to take a scientific approach to look at the relationship between religion and human misery. Now according to the scientific method when we want study such a relationship we must follow a set pattern.

1. First the relationship is hypothesized. So we make an Hypothesis: Religion is related to Human misery thus: It is the cause of Human misery.

2. Then we take a look at the facts and we find indeed that there is plenty of religion about and plenty of misery about too. In many cases we also find that where there is a great amount of Religion there is also a great amount of Misery and where there is little misery there is also little Religion. This all seems to support our hypothesis nicely. There is a positive correlation between the two phenomena.

3. But we must make a control too. Let's us take a look at such societies that are not based on religion, where religion is minimal or non existent. Will we find that Misery is eradicated too? History gives us a perfect example in Communist USSR. That was an irreligious society based on nonreligious principles that actually made a point of suppressing and eradicating religion. Were the issues that brought about human misery eradicated in such societies? Hmmm.

4. As a scientist where does that leave me? What do I conclude about this hypothetical correlation between 'infantile beliefs of religion' and human misery?

. . . let me go away and think about that one.

i'm surprised none of the irreligious "eggheads" is thinking with you on this one.

In controlling you'd need more than one counter-example. So the likes of Sweden, Korea, etc. should be included. You'd also have to define how misery is to be measured and calculated. What degree of emotion counts as misery, etc.

I never did get the people that are convinced religion is responsible for human miseries, nor the people that believe it's responsible for human happiness. *shrugs*

Pastor AIO:

I want to take a scientific approach to look at the relationship between religion and human misery. Now according to the scientific method when we want study such a relationship we must follow a set pattern.

1. First the relationship is hypothesized. So we make an Hypothesis: Religion is related to Human misery thus: It is the cause of Human misery.

2. Then we take a look at the facts and we find indeed that there is plenty of religion about and plenty of misery about too. In many cases we also find that where there is a great amount of Religion there is also a great amount of Misery and where there is little misery there is also little Religion. This all seems to support our hypothesis nicely. There is a positive correlation between the two phenomena.

3. But we must make a control too. Let's us take a look at such societies that are not based on religion, where religion is minimal or non existent. Will we find that Misery is eradicated too? History gives us a perfect example in Communist USSR. That was an irreligious society based on nonreligious principles that actually made a point of suppressing and eradicating religion. Were the issues that brought about human misery eradicated in such societies? Hmmm.

4. As a scientist where does that leave me? What do I conclude about this hypothetical correlation between 'infantile beliefs of religion' and human misery?

. . . let me go away and think about that one.

this is neither a scientific process nor a logical argument.

devayid:

this is neither a scientific process nor a logical argument.

You're right that it isn't really a scientific process. It's not thorough enough. Let's call it a pseudo scientific project. However you're wrong in saying that it isn't a logical argument. Perhaps you can tell me how it fails to meet the constraints of logic. As an investigation into the correlation between religion and Misery I don't think I've put a foot wrong yet, logically speaking.

KAG:

In controlling you'd need more than one counter-example. So the likes of Sweden, Korea, etc. should be included. You'd also have to define how misery is to be measured and calculated. What degree of emotion counts as misery, etc.

I never did get the people that are convinced religion is responsible for human miseries, nor the people that believe it's responsible for human happiness. *shrugs*

You're right too. We should consider more examples in order to be more accurate. North Korea is a society without religion too. And so is Sweden.
How are we to measure misery? That's a difficult one, but there is a school of thought that links Religion to Misery. I'm not sure how they measured the Misery themselves. I suppose they took a look at the level of Social security there was, I don't mean just like unemployment support and health insurance but also Job security (for those in work) and national security (for those with belligerent neighbours).
Another related claim that is often made is that there is a negative correlation between religion and technological progress in a society. I suppose that lack of technological advancement is thought to feed into Human misery.
However whenever I look at the history of technological progress I find that many advances are actually made within the cloisters of various religions. Which leads me to doubt that there is any correlation in religion as such ('the infantile belief in imaginary beings') and technological backwardness.

What I suspect however is that wherever there is a Powerful Status Quo with massive interests in preserving that status quo then much will be done to stem the advance of thought and technology. It doesn't matter if that status quo is religious or secular. What do you think?

Pastor AIO:

I want to take a scientific approach to look at the relationship between religion and human misery. Now according to the scientific method when we want study such a relationship we must follow a set pattern.

1. First the relationship is hypothesized. So we make an Hypothesis: Religion is related to Human misery thus: It is the cause of Human misery.

2. Then we take a look at the facts and we find indeed that there is plenty of religion about and plenty of misery about too. In many cases we also find that where there is a great amount of Religion there is also a great amount of Misery and where there is little misery there is also little Religion. This all seems to support our hypothesis nicely. There is a positive correlation between the two phenomena.

3. But we must make a control too. Let's us take a look at such societies that are not based on religion, where religion is minimal or non existent. Will we find that Misery is eradicated too? History gives us a perfect example in Communist USSR. That was an irreligious society based on nonreligious principles that actually made a point of suppressing and eradicating religion. Were the issues that brought about human misery eradicated in such societies? Hmmm.

4. As a scientist where does that leave me? What do I conclude about this hypothetical correlation between 'infantile beliefs of religion' and human misery?

. . . let me go away and think about that one.

Hello Pastor AIO, I think this would be a most interesting study and let's see how far we can take it along here. Firstly, a definition of some terminology or concepts would be in order. What do we understand by the following:

1) Religion
2) Irreligion, non-belief or atheism
3) Rationalism or scientific rationalism
4) Superstition
5) Human misery
6) What does it mean to be a religious nation or country/state?
7) What does it mean to be a non-religious or secular nation or country/state?

There may be more but these are the few that have come to mind and that are think are foundational to the proper treatment of this question. If you were researching this subject in an academic context, say for a degree, you would have to define these concept very early on, to give your audience some clear picture as to the terrain you wish to traverse.

I think I can say with some degree of confidence that most people on NL would have a fairly reasonable understanding of what items 1) through 5) are, so I will not dwell on them, as important as there are. I would rather like to tackle items 6) and 7) in the rest of this post.

You will be aware from the history of my post on NL that I classify religion as but one of the irrationalism (supersitious) that plague humans, amongst others such as astrology, cults and cults of personalities, racism, xenophobia, corruption, etc, etc. as we are here dealing with religion, I shall ignore the others and only address religion. If religion or lack of religion is that cause of human misery, then it must affect humans insofar as it regulate, influences or governs human life. But can religions or lack of religion exist without much influencing human life? I think the latter question brings us right against items 6 & 7 above.

What does it mean to be a religious nation or country/state?

In my opinion, a religious nation/state would be a country whose governing tenets, public institutions, laws and constitutions are founded on the prevailing local religions and have leaders of these nations/states, public institutions and other public officials are chosen based on their allegiance to the local religion. Such officials are ultimately answerable of an overall state religious authority. The overwhelming majority of the citizens of such countries would be devotees of the state religion.

Other characteristics of such state-sponsored religious environment are:

a) Hostility towards other (rival) religions and points of views.
b) Heavy-handed application of religious law.
c) Intolerance towards minority positions.

I submit that there are many countries, that at one time or the other, would satisfy these attributes of religious nation/state, namely;

i) present-day Iran (Muslim)
ii) present-day Saudi (Muslim)
iii) Most of medieval Europe (Christian)
iv) The Vatican (Christian)

Essentially, in religious states, the clerics wield the reins of political, cultural and economic power and citizens are ultimately answerable to the clerics who are seem as the representative of their deity here on earth. Now, what are or were the conditions of people who are governed by the clerics? Well, I am sure it will come as no surprise to you that these are not the paragon of virtue and tolerance an rationalism.

I cannot leave this section without address the issue of whether countries like America, France, Sweden, Germany, England, Japan, Holland etc, etc, are religious countries. If my definition of what constitute a religious country is correct, then these countries cannot be defined as religious countries. Time was when some of these would have met that definition, but they have all but outgrown the embrace of religion. In these countries, there is clear separation of the state from religious spheres, as opposed to the quintessential religious states of yore.

Further, by the definition I gave above, the fact that the citizens of a country might predominantly belong to one religious flavours and privately observe its tenets does not necessarily make that country a religious nation/state. Thus American or Nigeria whose citizens are predominantly religious would not classify as religious countries.

What does it mean to be a non-religious, or secular nation or country/state?


If the governing institutions, laws and constitution of the state are predominantly non-religious, then such countries could defined as secular countries. Institutionally, these countries pay little or no homage to the religious and there is usually clear separation of church and state jurisdiction. State or national secularism is a relatively new phenomenon and is also usually accompanied by liberal democratic electoral processes.

There are and have been all manner of secular states on the planet, with contemporary Western Europe epitomising the high watermark of state secularism, with countries such as France, Germany, the UK, America, Sweden, Norway, etc, etc. Other liberal secular countries are Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc, etc. Others with some degree of liberalism are Taiwan, Turkey, Nigeria, Cameroon, India, Russia, etc, etc.


Now, an important question to address is the following - To what extend are the governing authorities of a country, secular or religious, interested in promoting an agenda that reflects their metaphysical worldview? And at what cost? With that background set out as I have above, I think it is these latter questions that strick at the heart of your question.

Allo Pastor!